Turner, Brian. "Giving Good Reasons: Environmental Appeals in the Nonfiction of John McPhee." Rhetoric Review 13:1 (Fall 1994):164-82. Repr. in Coming Into McPhee Country: John McPhee and the Art of Literary Nonfiction. Ed. O. Alan Weltzien and Susan N. Maher. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003. 162-184.
Brittany Douthwright
The article I chose to read is called Giving Good Reasons: Environmental Appeals in the Nonfiction of John McPhee, by Brian Turner.
This article really helped me clarify what I already have learned about McPhee, but has also allowed me to explore new observations, and opinions about his work.
Turner's main focus in this essay is the relationship between McPhee, nature, and people. He argues that McPhee's writing is somewhat persuasive, but most importantly, is a means of acquiring knowledge. A good example of this would be myself learning about the virgin forest, and the pine barrens. These are important places I should no about, because of their ecological significance, but I never heard about them before McPhee. Another example, would be McPhee's unfamiliar terms. Some words I do not understand, but I am so engaged by his writing, I want to understand everything, so I look them up and learn more.
"I have argued in this essay that the rhetoric of John McPhee has suasive function as well as expository and epistemic functions." Turner (179)
Before reading this essay, I certainly considered McPhee to be an environmentalist, but this article changed my opinion. Turner says it best when
he explains how it is obvious that McPhee cares a lot about nature, but he also cares about people. This is what I mean when I say Turner explores the relationship between McPhee, nature, and people. To McPhee, people and nature are equally important. Nature relies on people and vice versa. McPhee should not be called an extreme environmentalist, because he believes people and technology and nature, can coexist.
"His love of nature never overwhelms his respect for people."- Turner (169)
Another important point made by Turner, is how McPhee is sure to get all sides of the story. He explores all characters, the good and the bad. He will praise people for what they are worth, but he will also examine people closely and hold them accountable for their actions. Above all, McPhee does not judge. He tells the facts, and allows the reader to judge for themselves. He looks for the good in everyone and everything, without being critical from his own point of view. He does not push his opinions on people, but expresses it subtly.
"What I have described thus far is McPhee's social-ecological position on environmental issues, and to some extent the ways in which he elicits assent as he states that position." Turner (173)
Turner discusses many of McPhee's characters, and how their depiction can let the reader into the writers insights. For example, Turner dedicates a large part of his essay studying Richard Eckert, a chief engineer for a nuclear power plant, and Dave Brower, an extreme environmentalist. One would expect someone who loves the environment to show some resentment towards a nuclear power engineer, and some love for the environmentalist, but McPhee does the exact opposite. He almost plays what some would call the devils advocate. He portrays Eckert as a person like you or I, not someone who has something against the environment. And to the opposite, he describes Brower as an extremist, someone who loves trees more than people.
Brittany Douthwright
The article I chose to read is called Giving Good Reasons: Environmental Appeals in the Nonfiction of John McPhee, by Brian Turner.
This article really helped me clarify what I already have learned about McPhee, but has also allowed me to explore new observations, and opinions about his work.
Turner's main focus in this essay is the relationship between McPhee, nature, and people. He argues that McPhee's writing is somewhat persuasive, but most importantly, is a means of acquiring knowledge. A good example of this would be myself learning about the virgin forest, and the pine barrens. These are important places I should no about, because of their ecological significance, but I never heard about them before McPhee. Another example, would be McPhee's unfamiliar terms. Some words I do not understand, but I am so engaged by his writing, I want to understand everything, so I look them up and learn more.
"I have argued in this essay that the rhetoric of John McPhee has suasive function as well as expository and epistemic functions." Turner (179)
Before reading this essay, I certainly considered McPhee to be an environmentalist, but this article changed my opinion. Turner says it best when
he explains how it is obvious that McPhee cares a lot about nature, but he also cares about people. This is what I mean when I say Turner explores the relationship between McPhee, nature, and people. To McPhee, people and nature are equally important. Nature relies on people and vice versa. McPhee should not be called an extreme environmentalist, because he believes people and technology and nature, can coexist.
"His love of nature never overwhelms his respect for people."- Turner (169)
Another important point made by Turner, is how McPhee is sure to get all sides of the story. He explores all characters, the good and the bad. He will praise people for what they are worth, but he will also examine people closely and hold them accountable for their actions. Above all, McPhee does not judge. He tells the facts, and allows the reader to judge for themselves. He looks for the good in everyone and everything, without being critical from his own point of view. He does not push his opinions on people, but expresses it subtly.
"What I have described thus far is McPhee's social-ecological position on environmental issues, and to some extent the ways in which he elicits assent as he states that position." Turner (173)
Turner discusses many of McPhee's characters, and how their depiction can let the reader into the writers insights. For example, Turner dedicates a large part of his essay studying Richard Eckert, a chief engineer for a nuclear power plant, and Dave Brower, an extreme environmentalist. One would expect someone who loves the environment to show some resentment towards a nuclear power engineer, and some love for the environmentalist, but McPhee does the exact opposite. He almost plays what some would call the devils advocate. He portrays Eckert as a person like you or I, not someone who has something against the environment. And to the opposite, he describes Brower as an extremist, someone who loves trees more than people.